Misinformation in online spaces can stoke mistrust of established media, misinform the public and lead to radicalization. Hence, multiple automated algorithms for misinformation detection have been proposed in the recent past. However, the fairness (e.g., performance across left- and right- leaning news articles) of these algorithms has been repeatedly questioned, leading to decreased trust in such systems. This work motivates and grounds the need for an audit of machine learning based misinformation detection algorithms and possible ways to mitigate bias (if found). Using a large (N>100K) corpus of news articles, we report that multiple standard machine learning based misinformation detection approaches are susceptible to bias. Further, we find that an intuitive post-processing approach (Reject Option Classifier) can reduce bias while maintaining high accuracy in the above setting. The results pave the way for accurate yet fair misinformation detection algorithms.
more »
« less
Misinformation Detection Algorithms and Fairness across Political Ideologies: The Impact of Article Level Labeling
Multiple recent efforts have used large-scale data and computational models to automatically detect misinformation in online news articles. Given the potential impact of misinformation on democracy, many of these efforts have also used the political ideology of these articles to better model misinformation and study political bias in such algorithms. However, almost all such efforts have used source level labels for credibility and political alignment, thereby assigning the same credibility and political alignment label to all articles from the same source (e.g., the New York Times or Breitbart). Here, we report on the impact of journalistic best practices to label individual news articles for their credibility and political alignment. We found that while source level labels are decent proxies for political alignment labeling, they are very poor proxies-almost the same as flipping a coin-for credibility ratings. Next, we study the implications of such source level labeling on downstream processes such as the development of automated misinformation detection algorithms and political fairness audits therein. We find that the automated misinformation detection and fairness algorithms can be suitably revised to support their intended goals but might require different assumptions and methods than those which are appropriate using source level labeling. The results suggest caution in generalizing recent results on misinformation detection and political bias therein. On a positive note, this work shares a new dataset of journalistic quality individually labeled articles and an approach for misinformation detection and fairness audits.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1915790
- PAR ID:
- 10438812
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 15th ACM Web Science Conference 2023
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 107 to 116
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
null (Ed.)Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources.more » « less
-
Concerns about the spread of misinformation online via news articles have led to the development of many tools and processes involving human annotation of their credibility. However, much is still unknown about how different people judge news credibility or the quality or reliability of news credibility ratings from populations of varying expertise. In this work, we consider credibility ratings from two “crowd” populations: 1) students within journalism or media programs, and 2) crowd workers on UpWork, and compare them with the ratings of two sets of experts: journalists and climate scientists, on a set of 50 climate-science articles. We find that both groups’ credibility ratings have higher correlation to journalism experts compared to the science experts, with 10-15 raters to achieve convergence. We also find that raters’ gender and political leaning impact their ratings. Among article genre of news/opinion/analysis and article source leaning of left/center/right, crowd ratings were more similar to experts respectively with opinion and strong left sources.more » « less
-
Automated journalism technology is transforming news production and changing how audiences perceive the news. As automated text-generation models advance, it is important to understand how readers perceive human-written and machine-generated content. This study used OpenAI’s GPT-2 text-generation model (May 2019 release) and articles from news organizations across the political spectrum to study participants’ reactions to human- and machine-generated articles. As participants read the articles, we collected their facial expression and galvanic skin response (GSR) data together with self-reported perceptions of article source and content credibility. We also asked participants to identify their political affinity and assess the articles’ political tone to gain insight into the relationship between political leaning and article perception. Our results indicate that the May 2019 release of OpenAI’s GPT-2 model generated articles that were misidentified as written by a human close to half the time, while human-written articles were identified correctly as written by a human about 70 percent of the time.more » « less
-
Newsfeed algorithms frequently amplify misinformation and other low-quality content. How can social media platforms more effectively promote reliable information? Existing approaches are difficult to scale and vulnerable to manipulation. In this paper, we propose using the political diversity of a website’s audience as a quality signal. Using news source reliability ratings from domain experts and web browsing data from a diverse sample of 6,890 US residents, we first show that websites with more extreme and less politically diverse audiences have lower journalistic standards. We then incorporate audience diversity into a standard collaborative filtering framework and show that our improved algorithm increases the trustworthiness of websites suggested to users—especially those who most frequently consume misinformation—while keeping recommendations relevant. These findings suggest that partisan audience diversity is a valuable signal of higher journalistic standards that should be incorporated into algorithmic ranking decisions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3578503.3583617
